Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Against Verdict Upholding State Power To Ban Betting On Online Rummy, Poker

The Supreme Court has dismissed review petitions challenging a judgment by which it was held that the protection afforded to games of skill under Entry 34 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India cannot be construed as protection to betting on those games, which essentially becomes a gambling enterprise.

The Court had also held that State legislatures are fully competent under Entry 34 to prohibit betting on games of skill, and that the constitutional immunity historically associated with skill-based games does not survive the introduction of monetary stakes.

The Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ordered, "We have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and the connected papers. We find no merit in the Review Petitions, and the same are, accordingly, dismissed."

The State of Tamil Nadu had enacted the 2021 Tamil Nadu Amendment Act and thereafter the Tamil Nadu Online Gambling Act, 2022-23, expanding the definition of "gaming" to cover betting on games of skill including online rummy and poker.

The State of Karnataka similarly amended the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, in 2021.

Both sets of legislation were challenged by online gaming companies. The Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court struck them down, holding that games of substantial skill enjoy protection under Article 19(1)(g) and that Entry 34 is confined to games of chance. The States appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeals of the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka were allowed, and the impugned judgments of both High Courts were set aside.

Part II of the 2021 Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, Sections 2(i) and 2(l)(iv) and the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Online Gambling Act 2022/23, and Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the 2021 Karnataka Amendment Act were also declared intra vires the Constitution.

The Respondent, therefore, filed the present review petitions.

The Court had also held that the protection historically afforded to games of skill under State gaming statutes, was a legislative choice and not a constitutional compulsion. The Court further held that the word "gaming" is not nomen juris it is a fluid statutory definition capable of alteration by the legislature and cannot be confined to games of chance alone.

“The expression ‘betting and gambling’ cannot be split to mean that the staking angle alone would amount to betting whereas the risk angle or the chance element would amount to gamble. Both betting and gambling involve the aspect of staking money on an uncertainty. Merely because the risk element is commonly perceived as ‘taking a chance’, it cannot mean that an expression would cover only games of chances”, the Bench had observed.

On public order, the Court had held that online money gaming, through addiction, financial ruin, and resultant suicides, has a proximate and direct nexus with public tranquillity, sustaining the States' competence under Entry 1 of List II as well. The Tamil Nadu legislation was additionally found to be supported by empirical data from the Justice Chandru Committee report.

Accordingly, the review pleas were dismissed.

Cause Title: Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.[R.P.(C) No. 10491/2026 in C.A. Nos. 6124-6131/2023]

Click here to read/download the Order